In 1998, this Cook County defendant committed offenses for which he was indicted for first
degree murder, home invasion, residential burglary and two separate charges of aggravated criminal
sexual assault. A conviction for the last-named offense, by statute, triggers mandatory consecutive
sentences where there are convictions for multiple offenses.

A jury trial began in 2001, but was cut short when the parties reached a fully negotiated plea
agreement. The residential burglary charge was dropped, and the defendant agreed to plead guilty
to murder, home invasion and one of the charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault. Pursuant to
the agreement, the circuit court imposed concurrent terms of 55 years for murder and 30 years for
each of the other offenses. Later, in 2003, proceedings on the defendant’s attempt to withdraw his
plea resulted in reduction of the murder sentence to 50 years.

In 2005, Donelson filed an unsuccessful postconviction petition and, in 2009, filed an
unsuccessful petition for relief from judgment. In appealing to the appellate court from the denial
of relief in the latter proceeding, he contended that concurrent sentencing rendered his sentences and
plea void. The appellate court agreed that the concurrent sentencing structure was void, but not that
the agreement was not void, because the parties’ intent that 50 years be spent in prison could be
implemented by resentencing the defendant in accordance with both the plea agreement and the
applicable statutes.

Defendant, however, was not satisfied with this. Challenging his plea as void, he urged that the
plea be vacated and the cause remanded for the reaching of a new agreement, or for the State to
proceed to trial. The State countered this by arguing that it would be prejudiced by being forced to
attempt to retry a case more than 14 years after the offenses. It sought, instead, reformation of the
original agreement so as to give both parties the benefit of their bargain. The appellate court took this
course and, with it, the supreme court agreed. The supreme court said that both the defendant and
the State were mistaken insofar as they believed that the defendant could be sentenced to concurrent
terms. However, their mutual mistake may be rectified by contract reformation because they were
in actual agreement and their true intent may be discerned.

The defendant would receive the benefit of his bargain for a total of 50 years in prison if
consecutive sentences for a total of 50 years are imposed. That can be implemented in this case. Fifty
years was the amount of time which everyone originally believed the defendant would spend in
prison.

This is the appropriate remedy where parties to a fully negotiated plea agreement are mutually
mistaken as to the manner in which sentences must be served, but otherwise agree on the maximum
number of years.